Due to the perceived importance of this event, the UPA will grant waivers to those members who feel they must play in this event. However, the UPA cannot offer to any member competing in the event any of the assurances that would normally follow from UPA sanctioning."

George Lord
UPA Board of Directors

Tom_In_Cincy

07-21-2003, 08:35 PM

So, The US OPEN is ON.

Pool and partying start Sunday Sept 14th..

9 Ball Girl

07-21-2003, 08:39 PM

Tom, you mean Monday, the 15th! Does this mean that you'll be there and perhaps participate in the CCB Tourney? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wendy~~~will be boozing it up say in about 55 days in the South and wondering when Kato's going to start his countdown...

Tom_In_Cincy

07-21-2003, 08:53 PM

Wendy,

A very kind person has donated to me a plane ticket (round trip) for the event of the year in the US Pool world.

I will be there all week, arriving on Sunday Sept 14th, and leaving Monday Sept 22nd.

I hope to be sharing a VERY LARGE room with VooDoo Daddy on Friday and Saturday Sept 19th and 20th.

I will know more later.. as far as playing, sure.. COUNT me IN..

SacTown Tommy wants to play too..

Kato

07-21-2003, 08:58 PM

I think you should know what you're getting into Tom. Voodoo is a WORLD CHAMPION SNORER!!!!!!!!!!

Take the loudest sleeper you know..............Voodoo gives them the Blood Ball and The Smash /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Kato~~~been there, done that. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Tom_In_Cincy

07-21-2003, 09:10 PM

Sleep? what's SLEEP?

Rod

07-21-2003, 09:22 PM

Sounds like a fair statement. This is a classic line,( Due to the "perceived" importance of this event,. LOL

Ken

07-21-2003, 09:56 PM

Good for Mr. Behrman! Now let's hope that Mr. Helfert has done the same thing about the L.A. open. Perhaps the UPA will sometime in the future put on an event with some "perceived importance" instead of the 32 player single elimination events that take 4 days when they could be done in one day.

It's time for the promoters to get together and act in their own interest. They have far more clout than the UPA ever will.

Congratulations to the UPA for finally doing the right thing even though they couldn't bear to do it without trying to besmirch Mr. Behrman. And since when is a vaiver needed for an event that is not one of the "non-UPA sanctioned events that conflict with the UPA". According to the "revised" contract a waiver is not necessary. Don't they know what they wrote in their own contract? I can see they didn't read it since clearly proofreading was not done. I'd like someone to tell me what they are trying to say in paragraph 6.

Paragraph 7. says a waiver is not required so why are they making a big deal about granting waivers? Is it only to make public their perceived shortcomings of Mr. Behrman?
KenCT

Deeman

07-22-2003, 05:35 AM

Super! Now I'm glad I'm going for sure! If they will pull santioning from other events, maybe I will attend them as well. Can't wait to strut around in my CCB T-Shirt.....

Wally_in_Cincy

07-22-2003, 07:13 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rod:</font><hr> Sounds like a fair statement. This is a classic line,( Due to the " <font color="red">perceived" importance </font color> of this event,. LOL <hr /></blockquote>

Those 2 words do sort of jump off the page don't they LOL.

Then there's this:

<font color="red">The UPA is of the opinion that sanctioning a tournament promoted by Mr. Behrman is inconsistent with this fundamental objective. </font color>

As if "Mr. Behrman" has done anything worse in his life than many, many pool players have done. Geez....

Wally~~doesn't know whether to laugh or throw up /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

BillPorter

07-22-2003, 07:17 AM

Now I am really worried about whether the UPA will sanction the CCB tournament!!!! And whether they will give me a waiver to play in it.

Alfie

07-22-2003, 07:46 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Paragraph 7. says a waiver is not required so why are they making a big deal about granting waivers? Is it only to make public their perceived shortcomings of Mr. Behrman?<hr /></blockquote>Perhaps to kibosh rumors of a boycott that would inevitably get circulated by the UPA detractors.

Wally_in_Cincy

07-22-2003, 07:49 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote BillPorter:</font><hr> Now I am really worried about whether the UPA will sanction the CCB tournament!!!! And whether they will give me a waiver to play in it. <hr /></blockquote>

The 2nd Annual CCB Invitational 9-ball Tournament and Booze-fest is sanctioned by the UPCESSFCC.

The United Poolplayers of Cincinnati, Eastern Seaboard, SoFla and Corn Country. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I'm out like SacTown Tommy in his sendoff tournament /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Ken , I am glad for all the CBers that are going to the open that they will get to see the top players.
Enjoy people. Have fun. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

On the other hand , this statement bothered me .

It's time for the promoters to get together and act in their own interest. They have far more clout than the UPA ever will.

Mr B might have the Open , but without players , he has nothing. This is the power of the players union , but if you dont have solidarity you dont have a union.
Seems to me that they should employ professionals to get the whole thing together. CW is obviously not up to the task.

If you leave it up to the promoters , the players will always lose out. I will bet that the top players make more money gambling than from prize money. They have to.
Try getting a money game with a top snooker player . You cant put up enough money to make it interesting.

Snooker was in the same position as pool , 35 years ago . The whole thing changed when the players got organized. It has happened in every sport . Baseball, Basketball etc. In these sports the power is with the players.

If you want your sport to progress, it has to be possible for a pro to make a decent living without having to gamble to make ends meet.If you want professionals, you have to pay them , so they can commit themselves full time to the sport.

The promoters will never do this , they like it the way it is. The players follow the promoters like sheep because they have no choice. With all the overseas players coming in , it isnt getting any easier.

Q

Ken

07-22-2003, 08:33 AM

Qtec,
My primary thought is that the promoters need to get together to stop the bullying of the UPA. The independent promoters should be left alone and allowed to put on events without the UPA coming along to extort money from them.

The UPA should be doing what the WPBA does and that is organize a tour. Hopefully it could be a tour that allows the players to participate without losing money in travel and other expenses. The UPA insists that the players play in their sanctioned events even though they will probably lose money in the process due to various expenses just as now happens to most players on the WPBA tour.

The UPA should be putting on their own events with the guarantee that all the players will not lose money when they attend those events. When they do this then they can start making demands on the players.

The present contract provides that if a member doesn't attend a sanctioned event he "agrees that...the UPA may obtain...such equitable relief...including an injunction...". Why would anyone sign a contract that compells him to travel all over the country losing money or else get sued?

It's not a professional activity if most of the participants can't make a profit.
KenCT

Qtec

07-22-2003, 08:37 AM

So the problem is really the UPA and the players. If thats the case , nothing will change.

Q

If pool takes off in Europe , pretty soon the US Open will be a secondary event . What if Matchroom , on the same day as the Open , has a tournament with a $200,000 top prize . How many players will be at the Open.

Steve Lipsky

07-22-2003, 09:07 AM

Ken, I think the UPA is doing the right thing. They don't want their name associated with a tournament that has a spotty record of paying the winners.

They recognize that it's an important event (although I also was not very happy with their wording of the press release - they still need to get past this 5th grade namecalling stuff). But they can't risk the UPA name if Barry has payment problems again.

I think the UPA is choosing its sanctioning wisely, so that after a while, they can say they sanctioned 10 events - and all went well. Pretty soon, the UPA sanctioning process will mean something. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

The UPA has three events coming up in the northeast, so I think they're beginning the process of starting a "tour". It's debatable whether any of these tournaments would have happened without the UPA.

(And thank God they seem to be done with their single-elimination formats. I have no idea what they were thinking with that.)

Anyway, I'm keeping an open mind. There seem to be more tournaments these days than there were after Camel folded. Whether this is solely to the UPA's credit or not, I'm not sure. I just know that things are looking better for the pros than they have in a while.

- Steve

bolo

07-22-2003, 09:38 AM

I agree, they are only doing their job. It is not a boycott or black mail. There is in fact past problems and the possibility of future problems. If something already does not look right then they are doing the right thing. How can they sanction it if it is not in keeping with their own rules.

Ken

07-22-2003, 09:58 AM

Steve,
I can't agree that the sanctioning of an event turns it into a tour event. Two of the events you mention would take place without the UPA and be better off without the sanctioning. UPA sanctioning means the players have to pay extra to play and UPA players will be seeded ahead of better players who are not members. It also seems to mean that Earl is not allowed to play. All NEGATIVE effects.

The UPA is primarily a sanctioning body that no independent promoter needs and no promoter or player gets any benefit from. They masquerade as a tour oganizer but don't let them fool you. Two events this year is what I see. That's what has been gained due to the UPA. I'd still like to see what is going to happen with the L.A. Open.
KenCT

Steve Lipsky

07-22-2003, 10:18 AM

Ken, is it true that the UPA players have to pay extra to play? I didn't know that.

I know that there are exemptions to having to pay the UPA annual fee. As a "local non-pro" (their term), I will not have to join the UPA to play in either the Amsterdam event or the Masters event.

The United Poolplayers of Cincinnati, Eastern Seaboard, SoFla and Corn Country. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

<hr /></blockquote>

I was wondering who was going to sanction this amazing tournament this year. Obviously, a tournament this size, magnitude, and with this many egos needs sanctioning. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Kato~~~wonders who is in charge of our sanctioning body?

Ross

07-22-2003, 10:39 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Kato:</font><hr>
I was wondering who was going to sanction this amazing tournament this year. Obviously, a tournament this size, magnitude, and with this many egos needs sanctioning. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Kato~~~wonders who is in charge of our sanctioning body? <hr /></blockquote>

I, in my capacity as the self-appointed commissioner of the Durham, North Carolina Pool "Players" Association, do hearby officially sanction the 2nd Annual CCB Tournament.

So now we have a doubly-sanctioned tournament!

Ken

07-22-2003, 11:19 AM

Steve,
You don't have to join because you live near. The event contracts seem to require that everyone else pay $25 if they are NOT already members. Present members pay no extra.

You could pay the $25, become a member and not sign the contract for Hopkins' event. But for the Big Apple you have to join and that would seem to require signing the contract since the clause saying you didn't was removed. I heard that the requirement, although in the contract, was not being enforced for the Capital City Classic (whose contract seems to have been removed from the site).

In other words, even after reading the contracts posted at the UPA site I can't tell what is true or not. It does seem that as of now anyone playing in a sanctioned event has to fork up $25 to the UPA and become a member (unless it's the Capitol City Classic).

The contracts with the promoters are not consistent so there's no telling what the next one might say. They can be found at:
http://www.upatour.org/menu/press_releases.htm

Anyone signing the player's contract is agreeing that he will play in the UPA sanctioned events and that he will play in no event that conflicts with a UPA sanctioned event unless granted a waiver. He further agrees to be subject to a lawsuit if he misses an event or plays in a prohibited event. If you're interested I could e-mail you a copy.
KenCT

Kato

07-22-2003, 11:43 AM

You can do that Ross? You must be a very powerful individual in your home town. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif I couldn't think of a better Commissioner for Durham, NC. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Kato

Scott Lee

07-22-2003, 11:55 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr> Ken, I think the UPA is doing the right thing. They don't want their name associated with a tournament that has a spotty record of paying the winners.

- Steve

<hr /></blockquote>

Steve...Barry having problems paying off the players in TWO out of TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS does not constitute a "spotty record of paying the players", imo! I agree that Barry brought most of his problems on himself, by using the gate to pay the "guaranteed added money", but two years out of 27 doesn't seem to be too bad. It's still the largest, best organized, best paid, longest running tournament in the country. The DCC is coming up, but can't substanciate the same dollar figures as Barry. If CW does manage a boycott for "his" players, the US Open will be up for grabs.
However, like last year, I doubt if many will support his attempts at personal 'extortion' of Barry and this event. jmo

Scott Lee

Keith McCready

07-22-2003, 12:29 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr>Anyone signing the player's contract is agreeing that he will play in the UPA sanctioned events and that he will play in no event that conflicts with a UPA sanctioned event unless granted a waiver. He further agrees to be subject to a lawsuit if he misses an event or plays in a prohibited event.<hr /></blockquote>

Could I see a copy of this by e-mail, too?

Earthquake

Steve Lipsky

07-22-2003, 12:34 PM

Scott, I was actually going to edit my post. I love the US Open; it's the greatest tournament I've ever been a part of.

Barry's issues the last two years have obviously not affected me, but I still feel for those that have been hurt. It's a tough situation.

- Steve

Ken

07-22-2003, 01:34 PM

Steve,
It is my belief that last year's open did fine with everyone getting paid. Seems to me it was only the one during the WTC attack that was not paid in full right after the event. Barry lost a fortune but many others lost a lot more. The players, on the other hand, as far as I know have received most if not all of their winnings. I would certainly not feel sorry for them.

The only other event that I recall having a shortfall was the Masters. Due to the sparce attendence I believe payouts were delayed for that also but that has nothing to do with the Open.

I've said before that the players have to start taking some of the risks in this business. They are the draw and if the people don't show that just reflects the fact that the players cannot draw the spectators. Nevertheless they insist on getting everything they think they are entitled to.

It's time to promise the players only a part of what they can bring to the table. There's no reason why Barry has to bear the brunt of every loss. As I have said before, Barry could have cancelled the Open and the players would have permanently lost over a quarter million dollars. Instead he went forward with it and a few players had relatively small amounts withheld and paid to them after a delay.
KenCT

Qtec

07-22-2003, 02:09 PM

Its what happened the last tournament that counts.

Pool is at the cross roads ,it has to becme more professional. With the interest that is risng in the E.U , there is a danger that you will lose all your players .

In the present circumstances the players will follow the money .If the EU has the best prize money, the US will lose its best players.

Q

Tom_In_Cincy

07-22-2003, 02:36 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Its what happened the last tournament that counts.
<font color="blue"> For the record, last year's US OPEN was a complete success. All the players got paid every penny they deserved and when it was due. If your going to start slinging $hit, get it correct. </font color>

Pool is at the cross roads ,it has to becme more professional. With the interest that is risng in the E.U , there is a danger that you will lose all your players .

<font color="blue">CROSS ROADS.. do you even pay attention to the Pool news in the USA? There are more tournaments in the USA now than in the last 25 years. Where do you come up with your statements? If you don't believe me.. just read the latest Inside Pool, Billiards Digest or Pool and Billiards Magazines. These mags have all the listings you could ever want. </font color>

In the present circumstances the players will follow the money .If the EU has the best prize money, the US will lose its best players.

<font color="blue"> I certainly do not know how the pool environment in EU is doing, but if its all cracked up like you say it is, (remember, you blew it on your first two statements) why hasn't these smart USA pool players already made the transition to EU? </font color>

Due to the perceived importance of this event, the UPA will grant waivers to those members who feel they must play in this event. However, the UPA cannot offer to any member competing in the event any of the assurances that would normally follow from UPA sanctioning."

George Lord
UPA Board of Directors
<hr /></blockquote>

You know what? I just don't care anymore.

I see no point in attending any UPA sanctioned event in the future. It's pretty evident that they don't care about the fans nor whether fans come to watch them play. And since they are seeded what is the enjoyment of watching a top pro play a person who is a much weaker player?

There is still an outside chance I will go to the US Open and see the "event of a lifetime". Get my fill of the pros and forget about them.

I think I will just be like everyone else around here and just play my own game and enjoy myself. Actually, playing is more enjoyable then watching.

Jake

bolo

07-22-2003, 03:36 PM

Quote
"The only other event that I recall having a shortfall was the Masters. Due to the sparce attendence I believe payouts were delayed for that also but that has nothing to do with the Open."

Holy cow, you don't know much of the history of pool tournaments. All the way back to the James Gasten tournament, where I believe No one but Steve Cook got paid, and that was because he had tush hog T.R. with him, promoters have been stiffing players, changing payouts and screwing with players. You obviously never played any tournaments, you never know what will happen.

eg8r

07-22-2003, 03:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see no point in attending any UPA sanctioned event in the future. It's pretty evident that they don't care about the fans nor whether fans come to watch them play. And since they are seeded what is the enjoyment of watching a top pro play a person who is a much weaker player? <hr /></blockquote> Hello Jake, I am pretty much in the same boat as yourself. I have a hard time seeing the light on whether or not CW cares about the fans.

As far as the seeding, I hate that. I would much rather watch the pros play a local and have the chance at losing the match. Last year when I went to the tournament at Pro Billiards, I was more interested in seeing the pros play my buddies. This was also the tournament when I got to see Earl play JayM (member of this board).

eg8r

bolo

07-22-2003, 03:44 PM

I don't see the word boycott anywhere.

MikeJanis

07-22-2003, 06:11 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bolo:</font><hr> Quote
Holy cow, you don't know much of the history of pool tournaments. All the way back to the James Gasten tournament, where I believe No one but Steve Cook got paid, and that was because he had tush hog T.R. with him, promoters have been stiffing players, changing payouts and screwing with players. You obviously never played any tournaments, you never know what will happen. <hr /></blockquote>

Please don't include every promoter in this categorey. I know more promoters that have paid on time at the events then ones that have not.

I have ran over 750 events and have never not paid at the event in cash. Ny current payouts since the inception of the Viking Tour have exceeded 1.6 million dollars.

Mike Janis

bolo

07-22-2003, 07:09 PM

I am sure you do a great job and are always learning how to do it better. But you have to admit, left to their own devises the average promoter could care less about the players. Here is some examples of traveling around playing in tournaments. You pay an entry fee a month in advance so you don't get shut out in a tournament advertising a 64 player cut off. You arrive to find they are now going to 128 and shortening the races to accommodate the additional players. You finish a match at 9pm and are not to play again till 1 pm the next day. At 9:30, here comes the TD telling you, (not asking) he wants to play another round to get the field down. You end up playing till 3am to fix the screwed up board for the promoter. You go to the bar and you don't find any menus and see the prices on everything has been doubled for the tournament. The place is packed with paying customers spending with both hands, yet not another nickel is added to the prize fund other then the additional entry fees and they may take some of that. You match up to gamble, and find out you are being charged $20 and hour to play. With all the expenses you spend a $1000. to fly to and play a tournament with no guarantee what will happen when you get there. All I want, is to know what to expect and I will decide if I want to go, that is all I ask. Getting paid is the least of the problems, all the other BS is what I am talking about. If a promoter does not want to put on a tournament, don't. But if he thinks the players owe him anything he is wrong. It is a business decision on his part. I would venture to say, you don't do what you do for nothing. As a player, at a point you begin to feel like you are being prostituted. Very few players play for a living, most take time off from work or their business to play in a tournament. Not being lied to or screwed around is not much to ask. Players just want to play.

Ken

07-22-2003, 07:12 PM

The topic was Barry Behrman's recent tournaments and specifically the last two Opens. You want to change the topic and show how smart you are? The UPA trashed Behrman and the discussion was whether that was justified. Nobody was talking about all the other promoters.
KenCT

bolo

07-22-2003, 11:41 PM

What we are talking about is the policy of the UPA and I was pointing out the reason they are trying to adhere to the policy they have set forth. The US open is not the topic, the policy of the UPA is the topic. You have no idea what it is like dealing with some of the creeps that pass themselves as promoters. Your comments just come from being naive, I was just pointing this out to you. Besides, what do you know of his past tournaments before the Internet boards? How many have you played in or attended? The players know this guy a lot better then you do. In reading your entire post it is clear you don't play in tournaments because your comments are ridicules. The players take risks when it comes to tournaments, as well as the promoter. Regarding the US Open with entry fee and expenses it cost a good $1500. to play if you have to travel any amount. That is not a small amount to put up for the average player with little promise of any return. Like I said in another post, the players don't owe the promoters anything. I am not trying to sound smart, you just don't know anything.

Qtec

07-23-2003, 01:08 AM

Tom, maybe I deserve it , but I am not slinging [censored].
It seems every time I post something , certain people read them with preconcieved conviction that I am 'knocking'.

If last years Open was such a success, why all the problems? Why is the promoter 'bad for pool'?
I dont understand .

With more people playing pool than ever , dont you think its time that the pro game got sorted out?

I,m not saying that everybody should play in europe . All I am saying is that the US will have some serious competition from the likes of Matchroom etc.

The pool on TV here was a big success.
I was just pointing out that the players will follow the money . I think that is a logical conclusion.

Q

rackmup

07-23-2003, 04:28 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> All I am saying is that the US will have some serious competition from the likes of Matchroom etc. <hr /></blockquote>

That comes as no surprise. It's just like soccer here in the States vs. soccer abroad: while some watch it and it is popular, it just isn't as "big" here as it is "over there." You could say the opposite about baseball: Huge here and virtually non-existent over there.

As for the "reputation" of pool here: that's just something we're stuck with for the foreseeable future. We "have made our bed" so to speak.

The Berhman's have their detractors. The "bad reputation" might be somewhat deserved due to actions of the past but when do we as pool players/spectators/potential sponsors forgive those foibles and move on? Your guess is as good as mine.

As for the UPA: IMO it's been a joke and an attempted power play since the day the egg hatched.

Regards,

Ken (not a member of the UPA, not a pro, dislikes soccer and on a completely different note, thinks anything cooked in bacon fat will cure "what ails ya'.")

jjinfla

07-23-2003, 05:08 AM

I hope the UPA players keep in mind that BCTv will be running the matches of this year's (2003) US Open on TV in reruns and if they decide to skip the Open then no TV time for them.

Last year Shannon Daulton, Kim Davenport, Frankie Hernandez, Tommy Kennedy, Buddy Hall, John Brombeck, Danny Harriman, Sandor Tot, Johnny Archer, all members of the UPA but were intelligent enough to enter the US Open. Now they are rewarded by appearing on TV.

It seems to me that to be on TV would be the goal of any professional pool player, as is his sponsor. People want 15 minutes of fame and here BcTV is giving them 60 minutes of fame. Next week we get to see Frankie Hernandez and Tommy Kennedy on TV. When those two guys start hearing the feedback from their TV exposure they might realize how important the US Open is to their future.

So guys, go ahead and skip the US Open, show everybody how really stupid you are. I'm sure your sponsors will understand. they really don't want their logo to appear on TV. LOL. It's all about money. You make money for your sponsors, they will reward you. If you can't make money for your sponsors, what do they need you for?

Jake

Ken

07-23-2003, 05:58 AM

Since you know so much it's too bad you cannot contribute anything substantive to what I was talking about.
KenCT

Ken

07-23-2003, 06:25 AM

Qtec,
I agree that some of them will go to Europe just as they now go to Asia. But look at the problem the UPA had getting players to go to Cardiff. They had to go to number 41 on the ranking list to find someone who wanted to go. I doubt that many of them made a profit. Earl making $17,500 was a decent profit but Garrahan barely cleared expenses. A lot of U.S. players didn't want to go.

There certainly isn't much money here in the States. I think there's just a limit in how much interest can be drummed up for all the sports activities that are available. Legalized gambling on the events would help and might get things going here but the real opportunities seem to be elsewhere.

The ranking of the UPA is a farce if the players don't want to go to the events their ranking points make them eligible for. Apparently they are not as anxious to "reap the benefits of being a UPA member" as the leadership thinks.
KenCT

Keith McCready

07-23-2003, 06:26 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Steve Lipsky:</font><hr>I know that there are exemptions to having to pay the UPA annual fee. As a "local non-pro" (their term), I will not have to join the UPA to play in either the Amsterdam event or the Masters event.Steve <hr /></blockquote>

What is a "local non-pro," and where is this information?

Earthquake

Ken

07-23-2003, 06:57 AM

Keith,
I believe that the promoter's contract for the Capital City Classic had a clause that said any player living within 75 miles of the tournament site would not have to pay the $25 UPA fee. That contract seems to have been pulled from the UPA website and I have heard that the UPA membership requirement has been dropped from that event.

Steve may be in for a surprise because the contract for the Master Billiard 9-ball Open does not contain that clause. Instead it says "All players must be UPA members. Players may join the UPA prior to the players meeting in order to play". In addition: "Application for UPA membership is subject to UPA approval". Read that as "Don't even think about it, Earl".

Tha Gabriels is a little different. You have to join but do not have to sign the contract: "all players must be UPA members in good standing in order to play in a UPA sanctioned event. However, players do not have to sign UPA Player Contracts in order to play in UPA sanctioned events".

Depending on which promoter's contract is correct you must join but might or might not have to sign the contract. Be aware that if you sign the contract you are committing yourself to competing in UPA events or getting sued by them. If they think your presence is desirable they can sue to force you to play in every sanctioned event.

The players' contract makes you an indentured servant of the UPA. The UPA, in turn, agrees to further your interests, whatever that might mean to them.

The only way I know to determine who is a pro is the list at the BCA website. You are a pro and Steve is a master. I don't know if the UPA uses that list: http://www.bca-pool.com/play/

Promoters' contracts can be seen at the UPA website: http://upatour.org/

KenCT

Steve Lipsky

07-23-2003, 08:36 AM

Hey Ken. I hadn't heard that about Masters. Still, it might not affect me because I might not play in that tournament anyway.

The next three months or so will be crazy, what with the US Open, the Amsterdam UPA event, the NJ 14.1 tournament being run by Jack Colavita, the Downingtown PA 14.1 tournament, and numerous (smaller) Open 9-ball events in the area.

So many tournaments, so little time... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

- Steve

Ken

07-23-2003, 08:45 AM

Steve,
I would assume that the Amsterdam event will require UPA membership but who knows? Each contract is different and I doubt they will put anything on their site about Amsterdam.

I may see you at one or both 14.1 events. I've been to Downington and there wasn't much room for spectators so if I go to only one it will be Colavita's, if I have a vehicle that will make it.
KenCT

Qtec

07-23-2003, 08:57 AM

If you have to pay your own expenses , what does the UPA do for the pros.

Surely the whole point is to tour as a whole group.

If you qualify for a Pro tournament abroad , in snooker, your travel and hotel is paid for you . Even if you are broke you can still play.

Q

Vicki

07-23-2003, 10:32 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bolo:</font><hr> Quote
"The only other event that I recall having a shortfall was the Masters. Due to the sparce attendence I believe payouts were delayed for that also but that has nothing to do with the Open."

Holy cow, you don't know much of the history of pool tournaments. All the way back to the James Gasten tournament, where I believe No one but Steve Cook got paid, and that was because he had tush hog T.R. with him, promoters have been stiffing players, changing payouts and screwing with players. You obviously never played any tournaments, you never know what will happen. <hr /></blockquote>

I am quite sure Ken knows exactly what he is talking about. Mr. Berhman's un-profitable tournaments were the 2001 US Open and the Masters tournament that preceded it. Last year's US Open was a complete success, as have been all the rest of the Barry Behrman's events for the last 30 years.

YOU have gone off topic talking about tournaments by promoters other than Barry Behrman. And what is a tush hog T.R. exactly anyway?

Vicki

Keith McCready

07-23-2003, 11:03 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>If you qualify for a Pro tournament abroad , in snooker, your travel and hotel is paid for you . Even if you are broke you can still play.<hr /></blockquote>

Where do I sign up? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Earthquake

Vicki

07-23-2003, 11:38 AM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
If last years Open was such a success, why all the problems? Why is the promoter 'bad for pool'?
I dont understand .
Q <hr /></blockquote>

Last year's Open was a huge success. Everyone got paid in full and on time. The spectator and player turn-out was nothing short of spectacular. Very few notable players or industry who's who missed the event.

The problem seems to lie in the fact that Barry Behrman had two events that fell a little short of expectation and caused a financial loss. Naturally, the players were affected. Notice I said the problem SEEMS to lie here.

The truth is that the "powers" that be at the UPA have had it in for Barry Behrman since day one. The UPA was born of the problems with the 2001 US Open (the one that happened to start on 9/10 and ran the week of the World Trade Center Disaster).

The UPA "powers" have used Barry's personal and legal problems as justification for boycotting and slandering his name and his events. I have heard UPA members say that since Barry is such an unspeakably immoral and criminal person no one should support his events and this was used as justification for the UPA boycott.

I have heard more lies about this man that you could imagine. Yes, he's had his share of problems but no one who has tried to do so much for pool deserves to have the very people he's trying to help do so much to hurt his reputation.

The UPA PR Campaign prior to last year's US Open was designed to destroy the Behrman's reputation. Every day there was another post on a message board from the UPA slamming Barry and the event. They called for a boycott from the UPA members, weeded the forums with slander, sent out press releases so directly designed to hurt Barry that he could have sued their balls off. No subtly was spared.

I can only hope that this year their efforts will double the effect they had last year - the event was better than ever! More spectators, more players than ever before! Good going UPA!

Vicki

Rich R.

07-23-2003, 11:47 AM

Very well said Vicki.

Tap, Tap, Tap.

I know I am looking forward to returning to the Open this year. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
It should be one heck of a good time.

bolo

07-23-2003, 11:54 AM

Quote
"what is a tush hog T.R. exactly anyway?"

If you don't know, you have not been around pool much. As far as the topic, the topic is the UPA and why it has such rules to protect the players. The US Open is just one tournament. And don't be so sure about the past, unless you were there. Like I said, the players know the guy pretty good, he is no angel by any stretch of the imagination.

bolo

07-23-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote
"two events that fell a little short of expectation and caused a financial loss. Naturally, the players were affected."

The players have nothing to do with financial loss. They just come to play. I have never played bad, got knocked out early, then went to the promoter and asked for some of my entry fee back because I expected to make money and really could not afford the expense. That would be crazy just as expecting the players share in a failed tournament. That is just the way it goes, If you can't afford it, don't be promising so much money, money you don't have. That is gambling and not the players problem.

Wally_in_Cincy

07-23-2003, 12:24 PM

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bolo:</font><hr> The players have nothing to do with financial loss. They just come to play. I have never played bad, got knocked out early, then went to the promoter and asked for some of my entry fee back because I expected to make money and really could not afford the expense. That would be crazy just as expecting the players share in a failed tournament. That is just the way it goes, If you can't afford it, don't be promising so much money, money you don't have. That is gambling and not the players problem. <hr /></blockquote>

You have a good point but try to remember there was an incredibly tragic event that week which almost everybody is still suffering from in one way or another. Surely the players have not forgotten that. Or have they?

Steve Lipsky

07-23-2003, 12:30 PM

Bolo,

I don't know what the term is either. This is the second time you have used it and declined to define it.

I'm assuming a tush hog is just a goon. If you could just confirm this, I would really appreciate it. It's been driving me crazy since the first time you used it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

- Steve

Rod

07-23-2003, 12:43 PM

Steve,
Nothing more than a strong arm and probably a peanut size brain. Bolo would rather tell people what they don't know about pool rather than explain.

Rod

Brian in VA

07-23-2003, 02:00 PM

Vicki,
Well said! Tap, tap tap!
Brian in VA

bolo

07-23-2003, 02:02 PM

I think in that one case if I were playing I would have gone along with what ever was decided, It was very unique. In general though, I think some promoters want the prestige of advertising big, possibility unrealistic prize funds. They take a risk when they do it and that is the way it goes. As a player and I have played in the US Open a few times, I just want to play. I just want the guy to be up front. I don't care how much money he makes really, as long as he meets his obligation to the players. I don't want him to lose money, nobody wants to lose money, but the responsibility does not fall on the player for the success of the tournament. Most of the name players do everything they can to help. Making themselves available to sign autographs or interviews. I have seen Miz show up early to help kick off the tournament doing interviews and so on. All the players are willing to do what ever it takes to make a tournament a success, just don't lie to them.

bolo

07-23-2003, 02:26 PM

I guess I am older then I thought it used to be a common term. A tush hog is a very unpleasant person indeed. When he says something you can tell pretty quick it is not a bluff. They usually don't play but like to run around with players, their presents alone solve most problems. Some are as well known as the players themselves, such as "Sugershack" Johnny Novac. George Fells even wrote a column on him, he used to run around with Freddie the beard from Chicago. I still see him every once and a while. One of the few guys I was ever really afraid of. I absolutely knew you would have to kill him

bolo

07-23-2003, 02:31 PM

I thought it was as common a term as getting the 8. I guess it is not.

Rod

07-23-2003, 02:48 PM

If you've been around pool and gambling for enough years, it would be. Everybody hasn't had the thrill of meeting these colorful characters. I can't say as many would want to either.